Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Steve]

Corvus - I think some people disobey laws because the laws aren't enforced but mostly in this regard its about how society views the behaviour. People in part dont drink drive because they are afraid of the fines and charges but in the year 2013 its seen by the community /society as the wrong thing to do - it wasn't always viewed that way. In many areas especially small country towns anyone who gets pinged for drink driving is given sympathy and its mostly seen as no big deal and what a mongrel cop it is to dare to book them.

And overall we are in a place where someone breaking dog laws is not really seen as doing the wrong thing.

Because you or I are not that worried about wandering dogs doesnt change the fact that this is against the law and it is a symptom of who ever owns the dog being irresponsible.

We hear all kinds of get off the hook excuses but the fact remains that we have laws associated with dog ownership and whether or not some of us dont mind wandering dogs shouldnt count .

We have this massive anti breeder and anti puppy farm movement - just let someone get a wiff of a possible breach with any of that and watch the army with their blow flies come in to pressure the council and government to do their job or to introduce more laws to prevent one breeder and any other from being able to do what they dont have a problem with .

The laws we have with dog ownership are not being enforced so why aren't we seeing name and shame pages on the net, why arent we seeing letters to the editor demanding the council take action, why aren't we attending council meetings and pushing for dog owners to hear what they need to do and make them do it ? Because most of us don't see it as a big deal or at least not big enough to take even small actions to put a focus on it . Until we do that no laws or prohibitions on breeding X type of dogs or owning X type of dogs will make any difference . Reality is until there is some kind of united movement which comes from the people at community level we can talk about it all we like but we go no where.

[Steve]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

[Santo66]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that

Bad breeding is not the reason for attacks. Poorly bred dogs with dedicated owners who manage them appropriately are not a public safety risk. Neglectful owners and ignorant owners with well-bred dogs are a public safety risk. The important factor is management.

Rubbish, unprovoked aggression is in the breeding, the genetics of the dog, until people accept this, there is not much hope of improvement really

I can take the best bred dog with a great temperament and make it into a fear biter or an aggressive dog simply by managing it poorly and treating it badly.

Breeding is not the cause of dog attacks the causes can be lack of awareness of the species and their needs, lack of proper management, a propensity for dog owners to think they are above the law, a lack of common sense etc.

I watch every single day dog owners walking the streets with dogs who are unleashed, who do not pick up the crap of their dogs, who leave their dogs untethered outside shops, who let their dogs wander and who really have the attitude that their dog is ok.....but in whose eyes are they ok? I live in Victoria where the "draconian laws" are in place which seem to have made no difference to managing dogs well.

Councils need to do what they are aid to do by rate payers and that is to police their area for breaches of their laws and by-laws and to fine people who are not obeying those laws.

You can laugh all you like but people must be responsible for their property, their dogs and if they are not they need to suffer the consequences which should be hefty fines.

ETA I live in inner city Melbourne known more for hipsters not bogans

No you can't make a well bred dog into a fear biter unless the nerve strength is lacking in the dog, hence, not well bred dog. You can make a well bred dog handler aggressive with poor treatment but the dog has conflict with the handler not other people whom it has no connection with.

Poor breeding does cause dog attacks as if the same owners had a different dog without traits of active/social aggression, in their irresponsible management it wouldn't matter as an environmentally stable dog won't bite people unprovoked. Plenty of people have dogs running off leash with no control of them whatsoever but they don't all attack people which depends on the dog, not the lack of proper management.

[dog_fan]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that

Bad breeding is not the reason for attacks. Poorly bred dogs with dedicated owners who manage them appropriately are not a public safety risk. Neglectful owners and ignorant owners with well-bred dogs are a public safety risk. The important factor is management.

Rubbish, unprovoked aggression is in the breeding, the genetics of the dog, until people accept this, there is not much hope of improvement really

I can take the best bred dog with a great temperament and make it into a fear biter or an aggressive dog simply by managing it poorly and treating it badly.

Breeding is not the cause of dog attacks the causes can be lack of awareness of the species and their needs, lack of proper management, a propensity for dog owners to think they are above the law, a lack of common sense etc.

I watch every single day dog owners walking the streets with dogs who are unleashed, who do not pick up the crap of their dogs, who leave their dogs untethered outside shops, who let their dogs wander and who really have the attitude that their dog is ok.....but in whose eyes are they ok? I live in Victoria where the "draconian laws" are in place which seem to have made no difference to managing dogs well.

Councils need to do what they are aid to do by rate payers and that is to police their area for breaches of their laws and by-laws and to fine people who are not obeying those laws.

You can laugh all you like but people must be responsible for their property, their dogs and if they are not they need to suffer the consequences which should be hefty fines.

ETA I live in inner city Melbourne known more for hipsters not bogans

No you can't make a well bred dog into a fear biter unless the nerve strength is lacking in the dog, hence, not well bred dog. You can make a well bred dog handler aggressive with poor treatment but the dog has conflict with the handler not other people whom it has no connection with.

Poor breeding does cause dog attacks as if the same owners had a different dog without traits of active/social aggression, in their irresponsible management it wouldn't matter as an environmentally stable dog won't bite people unprovoked. Plenty of people have dogs running off leash with no control of them whatsoever but they don't all attack people which depends on the dog, not the lack of proper management.

Just in case you missed it, dogs are required by law not to run loose which means their breding or lack thereof is of no consequence.

[Santo66]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

Yeah we know all that.......problem is we can't rely on people being responsible so the next step is to remove the type of dogs who kill and maul people when the owners are irresponsible.......the idea is to save lives and prevent the trauma of injury by dogs.....don't you get that

[dog_fan]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

Yeah we know all that.......problem is we can't rely on people being responsible so the next step is to remove the type of dogs who kill and maul people when the owners are irresponsible.......the idea is to save lives and prevent the trauma of injury by dogs.....don't you get that

What I don't get is how you and those like you can look at any and every dog and determine which are dangerous and which aren't. Sounds a bit like magic and soothseeing to me.

[corvus]

We hear all kinds of get off the hook excuses but the fact remains that we have laws associated with dog ownership and whether or not some of us dont mind wandering dogs shouldnt count .

It's not that I simply don't mind. I am scared for them. They are in danger. They may well be killed if I don't stop for them and try to get them to safety. Whether they should or shouldn't be there is irrelevant. I do everything in my power to keep my dogs in where they are safe, but I'm not infallible. I hope that one day if my dogs ever end up loose without me someone WILL approach them and get them to safety as soon as humanly possible. Pretty sure that no amount of public condemnation would make me feel worse than I would already just having my dogs out there in harm's way. Obviously there are serial offenders because the owners don't care, and serial offenders with owners at their wit's end trying to keep the dog in, and one-time offenders whose foray outside of the yard is horrifically violent and ends in tragedy. I was speaking to someone last week who had dogs that got out and killed another dog. The dogs were declared dangerous and were put to sleep, but I don't think this person grasped the risk they were living with until it was too late. They had been getting ongoing help from a trainer and never let the dogs off leash or even really took them out of the yard. It is hard to demand people be responsible for something they haven't the ability or reason to predict.

[Angeluca]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down.

But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog.

part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family

part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side.

part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside

part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm.

13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth

14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table

15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table

16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face

17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen.

There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that.

It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety.

This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well.

yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed.

Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill.

Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way.

Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished.

So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics.

[Angeluca]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

Yeah we know all that.......problem is we can't rely on people being responsible so the next step is to remove the type of dogs who kill and maul people when the owners are irresponsible.......the idea is to save lives and prevent the trauma of injury by dogs.....don't you get that

What I don't get is how you and those like you can look at any and every dog and determine which are dangerous and which aren't. Sounds a bit like magic and soothseeing to me.

Dangerous is determined by the individual dogs actions and intent.

[dog_fan]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down.

But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog.

part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family

part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side.

part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside

part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm.

13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth

14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table

15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table

16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face

17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen.

There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that.

It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety.

This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well.

yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed.

Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill.

Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way.

Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished.

So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics.

So now dogs can have intent, that was a huge leap for that species.

[Angeluca]

So now dogs can have intent, that was a huge leap for that species.

I stated that ages ago and specifically to you in stating the oxford meaning to Malicious. A Jack Russel when attacking a rat isn't just doing it, it has intent to capture and kill the rodent as instilled within it's genetics.

or is this another it just wanted to play?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[dog_fan]

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out .

No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it .

That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down.

But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog.

part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family

part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side.

part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside

part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm.

13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth

14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table

15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table

16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face

17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen.

There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that.

It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety.

This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well.

yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed.

Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill.

Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way.

Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished.

So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics.

So now dogs can have intent, that was a huge leap for that species.

I stated that ages ago and specifically to you in stating the oxford meaning to Malicious. A Jack Russel when attacking a rat isn't just doing it, it has intent to capture and kill the rodent as instilled within it's genetics.

or is this another it just wanted to play?

T does not have intent it has instinct which is quite different. Until people stop attributing human felling emotions or ac to ions to dogs we will never solve anything

[Angeluca]

T does not have intent it has instinct which is quite different. Until people stop attributing human felling emotions or ac to ions to dogs we will never solve anything

intent is an action not an emotion, content is an emotion, you can't feel intent.

you can do something with intent.

however your understanding of instinct is correct, but a Jack russel would follow though with the instinct towards a rodent with the intention of killing it.

A dog bred for fighting decades ago would follow though with the genetic instinct to attack another dog with the intention of not stopping until the other dog stopped struggling aka death.

[~Anne~]

T does not have intent it has instinct which is quite different. Until people stop attributing human felling emotions or ac to ions to dogs we will never solve anything

100% agree. We are becoming so close to dogs that attributing human feelings to them is now seen as normal. They're a very, very, very different species to the human and to understand them, we have to understand that difference.

Angeluca, I may have missed it but are you now saying that it isn't cross breeding that is the issue but just poor breeding generally?

If so, do you acknowledge that different breeds have different temperaments and drives and that some may more easily be negatively affected by a lack of socialisation and other factors?

Although you could say it the origin of the potential behaviours like aggression may be found in the genetics, there are also many other contributing factors. The biggest being that dogs are canines and therefore their behaviours and drives are not based on, or formed, in the same manner as ours.

[Steve]

Any dog is dangerous - and its not just about crossbreeds or dogs which are bred with poor temperaments.

Ive been around dogs my whole life and the only scar I carry from a bite came from a purebred silky . One of the most horrible cases in this county was about a couple of little girls walking in a park in Melbourne where a pair of dogs were allowed to run off leash because they were well trained - purebred show dogs in fact and were known to have great temperaments. That incident resulted in death for one of the girls.

I agree that the dog in the Ayen Chol case should never have been bred .Yes we can cut down the risk factor and a chi is going to do less damage than a giant breed and some dogs will react differently under pressure if it snaps but all dogs need to be contained by their owners and we should be checking that people who own dogs have them safety contained and they understand the consequences for them and the dog if they dont. No breeder in the state of Victoria can own more than 3 fertile dogs without having to have special permits and have their homes inspected and be watched and monitored to ensure they are within the code for breeding dogs. Crazy people run around in the night to catch them out in case they allow more than two dogs to sleep together or they don't leave a water bowl for them overnight. Yet we allow people to live in suburbia and shrug off dog owners breaking the law or dogs which look like they are coming over the fence to attack and we think they can. We don't report them ,we don't actively do anything to ensure our neighbourhood is safe in fact we are more likely to dob someone in for having a dog that barks than we are to dob them in because the dog is constantly out of its yard or we can see its a disaster waiting to happen. If we are walking on the street and some rabid human comes out and yells at us and threatens us we tell the cops. We lament the bad breeding and the bad environmental issues that mad person but we still acknowledge he is behaving in an unacceptable manner and he is potentially dangerous and we want him and what he is doing dealt with here and now to ensure we and every one else he feels he would like to do this to is protected. If something goes wrong with a dog we want to blame the breeder or the kid that stuck knitting needles in its ears for making it crazier in the first place and no doubt about it there is ample evidence to prove the breeder or the torturer or neglect has a huge impact but they are separate issues to the one we are dealing with. Regardless of why the dog got like it is - it is how it is and as dog owners we should be responsible for keeping them in and doing what needs to be done to ensure others rights are respected and that risks are lowered.

The whole breeding for temperament thing is definitely needing to be addressed but when you stand face to face with a dog that wants to rip the fence apart to kill your child , when you are sitting in your home and some killer comes in and takes your childs life away while you watch - how the dog became that way is secondary because regardless of the whys the dog should have been contained .At that point the owner is responsible because they owned a dog - one which could kill better and easier than most others and they didnt manage it. While we take the next couple of decades to work out whether its a crossbreeding thing or a purebred thing or an entire dog thing, a type of breeder thing, a pet shop thing or an everything thing each of us should be playing our part and we dont. We excuse and empathize with the owners,take a different route, carry a big stick , complain here , feel bad if we dob them in after we are bitten or terrified and ask why when it happens and someone is hurt. Then the owners go on to breed them and it goes on.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Steve

[tdierikx]

Angeluca - I understand that you are putting forward a potential/hypothetical "solution" to a "problem" as you see it... but can you eleborate on WHO is going to enforce your solution, and HOW they are going to be able to do it effectively? Given that the already myriad laws and regulations we have now are not being effectively policed or enforced...

My solution is simple - put people on the ground in those positions tasked with policing the CURRENT laws, and you may actually see a decline in the numbers of people pumping out litters willy nilly for a "quick buck". Just imagine council rangers surfing all those buy and sell websites, then dropping in on the sellers to check the vaccination and microchip status of all the animals on the premises... with lovely fines for each animal that isn't chipped or registered...

I'd like to also see council rangers effectively being on call outside of business hours and on weekends - on a rotating roster of course. Animals don't confine themselves to being lost or in need of help during business hours after all... and why should the general public have to pick up the slack there to get an animal to the nearest pound or shelter?

T.

Yes i agree, but as stated page one or two my opinion on why that isn't happening, And some of the current laws fail on large scales even with enforcement after all they allow farming.

And I agree with 24 hour contact to council ranger, not 2 days a go I had a beautiful looking mastiff in my horse paddock playing with my dogs who were in their pen. this was at 11pm, I have a girl locked on the enclosed veranda and locked in her crate who is in season, which is why is was probably visiting. I told him to pi** off and he growled at me and ran away, I was within my house yard and knowingly safe, and I interpret his growl as 'leave me alone don't chase me'. But the point was he was not where he should be at the wrong time of day.

And why should the public risk approaching a strange dog, the boy in my yard wasn't aggressive but if he didn't leave and acting on his sensors due to girl in season and I cornered him and put a rope on him and tried to shove him in my car to keep my girl safe, what would he have done?

But if you ring some councils during office hours with a strange dog on the property they say' try and catch it'. which would mean close proximity cause most normal people don't have a lunge bar or whatever they are called they are unable to come out until later this afternoon or until tomorrow cause our range is not on duty today.

The government failure just keeps on going.

Can you please answer the bolded part of my question? Your response regarding "farming" still being legal is not exactly an answer there...

As for approaching strange dogs wandering the streets or in our yards - I've had my share of those that I've had to deal with because they always seem to be about when a ranger ISN"T available to come and deal with them. Then again, I'm not your average Joe Public when it comes to dealing with dogs either - I've got a few courses on handling dangerous dogs under my belt, and have been in rescue for a few years where one of my jobs is selection of dogs from the pounds we deal with - I have to be able to understand dog body language under stressful conditions in order to work out which pound dogs are going to be rehomable or not. Add that to the fact that the rescue I work with deals with a lot of sick or injured dogs who may be under even more stress than normal, and with a much higher propensity to bite because of same - I've yet to be bitten by any dog (roaming or rescue).

The fact remains that we DO have plenty of laws regarding dogs, that if enforced without fear or favour, would definitely have an impact upon some of the issues we are discussing in these threads... but we need the proper numbers of those tasked with enforcement of said laws increased to a level where they CAN do it effectively.

T.

[Steve]

Angeluca - I understand that you are putting forward a potential/hypothetical "solution" to a "problem" as you see it... but can you eleborate on WHO is going to enforce your solution, and HOW they are going to be able to do it effectively? Given that the already myriad laws and regulations we have now are not being effectively policed or enforced...

My solution is simple - put people on the ground in those positions tasked with policing the CURRENT laws, and you may actually see a decline in the numbers of people pumping out litters willy nilly for a "quick buck". Just imagine council rangers surfing all those buy and sell websites, then dropping in on the sellers to check the vaccination and microchip status of all the animals on the premises... with lovely fines for each animal that isn't chipped or registered...

I'd like to also see council rangers effectively being on call outside of business hours and on weekends - on a rotating roster of course. Animals don't confine themselves to being lost or in need of help during business hours after all... and why should the general public have to pick up the slack there to get an animal to the nearest pound or shelter?

T.

Yes i agree, but as stated page one or two my opinion on why that isn't happening, And some of the current laws fail on large scales even with enforcement after all they allow farming.

And I agree with 24 hour contact to council ranger, not 2 days a go I had a beautiful looking mastiff in my horse paddock playing with my dogs who were in their pen. this was at 11pm, I have a girl locked on the enclosed veranda and locked in her crate who is in season, which is why is was probably visiting. I told him to pi** off and he growled at me and ran away, I was within my house yard and knowingly safe, and I interpret his growl as 'leave me alone don't chase me'. But the point was he was not where he should be at the wrong time of day.

And why should the public risk approaching a strange dog, the boy in my yard wasn't aggressive but if he didn't leave and acting on his sensors due to girl in season and I cornered him and put a rope on him and tried to shove him in my car to keep my girl safe, what would he have done?

But if you ring some councils during office hours with a strange dog on the property they say' try and catch it'. which would mean close proximity cause most normal people don't have a lunge bar or whatever they are called they are unable to come out until later this afternoon or until tomorrow cause our range is not on duty today.

The government failure just keeps on going.

Can you please answer the bolded part of my question? Your response regarding "farming" still being legal is not exactly an answer there...

As for approaching strange dogs wandering the streets or in our yards - I've had my share of those that I've had to deal with because they always seem to be about when a ranger ISN"T available to come and deal with them. Then again, I'm not your average Joe Public when it comes to dealing with dogs either - I've got a few courses on handling dangerous dogs under my belt, and have been in rescue for a few years where one of my jobs is selection of dogs from the pounds we deal with - I have to be able to understand dog body language under stressful conditions in order to work out which pound dogs are going to be rehomable or not. Add that to the fact that the rescue I work with deals with a lot of sick or injured dogs who may be under even more stress than normal, and with a much higher propensity to bite because of same - I've yet to be bitten by any dog (roaming or rescue).

The fact remains that we DO have plenty of laws regarding dogs, that if enforced without fear or favour, would definitely have an impact upon some of the issues we are discussing in these threads... but we need the proper numbers of those tasked with enforcement of said laws increased to a level where they CAN do it effectively.

T.

Yep and the only way they are going to do more about it is if the community demands it and makes it a big deal.

[Angeluca]

I am just going to place all answers and agreements to the last few posts since my last one here.

Anne, I did mention it briefly somewhere, Yes I believe crossbreeding irresponsibly is a big problem within it's self, due to lack of education and suitable dogs this can occasionally but not always results in very dangerous dogs, sometimes it's just a problem because it puts a lot of hope and good fortune that the bitch have a textbook preg and whelp cause the idiot that put her in the situation may not know the risks and/or can't afford the c-section.

Greed is also not a reason to breed.

And markings or looks should never outweigh health and temperament in knowledgeable (pure or cross) breeding

But yes I agree with the rest of your statement.

Steve

I agree with you entirely nothing will change unless a community if not larger push for it.

And I also believe owner responsibility and poor breeding practices need to address in their own manner as well together.

The Ayen situation for example was %100 owner fault no dispute. But if the situation never happened and that dog stayed contained there would have been a lot more litters come off that property may be even one with the dog in question being the sire. Then there be more little time bombs out there.

Tdlierikx

your question to me is - in my ideal world federal funding with better trained rangers on the field at assist where the fines fall short. But it would be written with the assistance of those knowledgeable with dogs.

but like i said not going to happen any more then getting more rangers to enforce current laws. My solution was to entice the discussion as i know good dog people don't want more laws cause it will always affect them in a negative way even though it shouldn't.

And you and many of us on here know how to read a dogs vocal and physical signs, most don't and without the education they won't. And they shouldn't be expected by council to approach strange dogs for this reason alone.

The problem with education is some people fail to absorb it or disagree with it and do their own thing anyway.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[Steve]

I am just going to place all answers and agreements to the last few posts since my last one here.

Anne, I did mention it briefly somewhere, Yes I believe crossbreeding irresponsibly is a big problem within it's self, due to lack of education and suitable dogs this can occasionally but not always results in very dangerous dogs, sometimes it's just a problem because it puts a lot of hope and good fortune that the bitch have a textbook preg and whelp cause the idiot that put her in the situation may not know the risks and/or can't afford the c-section.

Greed is also not a reason to breed.

But yes I agree with the rest of your statement.

Steve

I agree with you entirely nothing will change unless a community if not larger push for it.

And I also believe owner responsibility and poor breeding practices need to address in their own manner as well together.

The Ayen situation for example was %100 owner fault no dispute. But if the situation never happened and that dog stayed contained there would have been a lot more litters come off that property may be even one with the dog in question being the sire. Then there be more little time bombs out there.

Tdlierikx

your question to me is - in my ideal world federal funding with better trained rangers on the field at assist where the fines fall short. But it would be written with the assistance of those knowledgeable with dogs.

but like i said not going to happen any more then getting more rangers to enforce current laws. My solution was to entice the discussion as i know good dog people don't want more laws cause it will always affect them in a negative way even though it shouldn't.

And you and many of us on here know how to read a dogs vocal and physical signs, most don't and without the education they won't. And they shouldn't be expected by council to approach strange dogs for this reason alone.

The problem with education is some people fail to absorb it or disagree with it and do their own thing anyway.

Agreed - as it stands now with no one complaining about it and no rangers taking a proactive approach and door knocking to ensure its dealt with. That dog was restricted breed and they were breeding them - they should have been stopped long ago and the laws are in place to do it - so while I agree if the attack hadnt happened we may have seen more like that dog being produced by thise people we wouldnt have seen more of that dog being produced or that dog being out of control if the property had been inspected and people around them had said something way before that happened. They were breaking the law long before the dog killed the child and people knew that and saw it as no big deal because laws re dogs are seen by the general population as being in consequential.

[Little Gifts]

The problem with the current laws are:

Funding, they can't even fix the roads where would the $55000- $75000 per annul income to hire just one more ranger then provide another vehicle.

They don't enforce because there is usually a descent amount of people with outstanding rates in the $1000s to follow up rather then chase down an $150- $250 fine. Same reason behind confiscating dogs while the owner fixes the fences which would be the only way to force them to do it without chasing fines.

one I idea would be to refer unpaid fines to the spur agency or set up a similar system. but anyone can pay off $20 a fortnight and it hasn't stopped people speeding or drink driving.

The idea I propose is have fines from illegal breeding bypass other government sections and is paid directly to the local council for incentive to chase up.

And puppy farming because it's a business comes under commercial laws, But the practices need reviewing to enforce better practices, eg health tests, compulsory micro-chipping with the farm of which they came before being sent onto a shop , vets ticking the 'sighted health tests of parents box' and the 'clear health of puppy' on commercial micrchipping forms. fines for noncompliance $15000+. Shops getting prosecuted and fines for accepting unmicrochipped dogs also $15000+

Dog attacks come under state or federal control so fines will always head that way but that is also under the control of the police to have out those fines or make an arrest.

Sorry if someone has already picked up on the bit I've highlighted - I've just discovered this thread and haven't been through the whole 8 pages yet.

Federal, state and local govt funds are very seperate pools of money. Pretty much 90% of all application fees or fines simply go back into general coffers at each of these 3 levels. The reason for this is that this money is then invested on the stock market and in other money making efforts to help boost shortfalls. This is why Qld has had to sell off a lot of assets after the GFC and several natural disasters. Govt agencies (or local govt sections) then have to apply for monies to meet certain purposes, fund projects and employ new staff from those who protect these coffers (usually the Treasury depts. at federal and state level). It is rare that the two ever meet, ie that fines or application fees are used directly to fund the same work.

Local govt could apply to the state or federal govt to access funds for a specific purpose (like more rangers to police state legislation) but here too, because of funding shortfalls they are likely to only receive base funding and would have to come up with additional monies through their own pockets to cover all salary and operational costs (vehicle for example) needed for a ranger. Base funding means that while a ranger's salary might range from $80,000 to $95,000 they will only get funded $80,000, so as an employee gains more experience or years of service that extra $15,000 has to be found internally. Operational costs are usually an on top percentage figure of base salaries and this percentage does not necessarily reflect actual operational costs either.

And I have no idea what a ranger's salary is worth - just plucked those figures out of my head.

Ah if only it were all so simple!